Hi Alex,

My opinion about the shafts remains flexible because precise measures of the shafts remain unavailable, and also because of the uncertainty of Khufu's date. Until at least the first of these impediments is removed we might have something to go on, but until then we can only put forward hypotheses.

Magli has written about the importance of the 45 degree alignment in Egyptian layout (for example that linking Giza and Heliopolis) while the root 2 division of the height of Khufu to locate the floor of the King's chamber (thus 'rotating' the pyramid through 45 degrees) suggests that this angle was 'holy' in some way. Other interior measurements, often in whole numbers of cubits, indicate that Khufu's architect designed the pyramid according to a numerical and geometrical design philosophy. Whereas information on the other shafts is scrappy (the Djedi resurvey says 'around 40 degrees' for the QC shafts - which presumably supersedes Petrie's 38.5) Gantenbrink is quite explicit that KC south is 45 degrees. Could it be that, while acknowledging the connection to Orion the passage angle was 'formalized' to 45 degrees? A vague speculation I admit, but I am not surprised that Gantenbrink rejects astronomy since his 'perfect' scheme for KC north requires 32.6 generated geometrically from the pyramid profile. I agree that there is not enough data to date Khufu from the shafts. Magli says shaft angles should be allowed 1 degree tolerance anyway, but who knows?

I had not realised that 'the two adzes' were Bauval's invention. On the other hand the shape of Ursa Minor is similar to that of Ursa Major and I should think ancient Egyptians noticed this. Ursa Major at least is considered an adze. But while we do not know the significance of Kochab in the stellar mythology it is interesting that in 2560 BC its moment of culmination (at altitude almost 40 degrees and in line with the Djedi estimate) coincides with the rising of Orion (at azimuth 118 degrees) on the eastern horizon. So it is conceivable that the selection of Kochab as a polar target acted as a marker to the birth of the real object of veneration at this date, Orion.

Nevertheless I take the earlier date seriously because Thuban was then so close to the celestial pole as to be virtually identical. Such a singular convergence would surely have promoted the importance of Thuban in the celestial pantheon, such that it was likely venerated even after it had drifted from the pole. But of all the correlations you offer to support the earlier dating, the deciding factor is the carbon dating problem. Are any other Egyptologists challenging the conventional dating on this basis?

By the way, regarding your proposal for measuring the horizontal position of 'the Aq of Meskhetiu' it seems to need more work to create the contrivance you have proposed than using a simple plumb bob and letting gravity do the work. We seem to be no nearer to identifying the star that the IVth dynasty builders followed.

I think your interpretation of the 'sealed' QC complex is near the truth. As for Djoser's box the question arises - why did they choose different angles for the eyeholes? More seriously why are there no indications in pyramids between Djoser and Khufu of similar relations to the stars?

Let's hope that soon the KC shaft level contradiction is cleared up and you get your radiocarbon results and some of these questions can be resolved.

Robin